Borg faced an array of great clay courters and clay court specialists. He's the greatest ever, followed by, Nadal and Lendl in my opinion in the Open Era. Rosewall was another all time great. Borg had it all in terms of being a great clay courter, and he lost once to Panatta when he was about 17. Adriano Panatta was not a bad player, by the way. Borg beat Vilas in two other FO finals, as well as Lendl, Orantes, Gerulaitis and Pecci in other FO finals. He won 6 FO's by 25 and he skipped it in 1977 due to a players' strike. He was a clay court MONSTER as is Nadal!

Gimme a break. Panatta was a serve amd volleyer on red clay . He doesn't deserve to shine soderlings shoes.

Click to expand...

Panatta was a much more accomplished clay court player than Soderling. It was his best surface. Soderling is not a really good clay court player. All the stars aligned for him to beat Nadal last year. Anyway, as you can see, Panatta won quite a bit on clay, including one FO title in 1976 among 8 total clay titles. See here:

If you make the record for most clay court wins with the GOAT in the draw --> you are the GOAT on clay, simple, really. True Borg has more FOs, which makes him the FO leader, but the OP asked about GOAT on clay (not FO leader) and there are more clay tourneys than just the FO.

Losing to someone 7 times out of 20 matches is not what I would call a "perfect matchup." Plus, Federer has a winning record over Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

Sure, Nadal matches up well against Fed. Still though, the way some people talk about about Fed vs Nadal, you'd think that Fed has never beaten Nadal. Whereas in reality, a 13-7 record in favor of Nadal, while lopsided, is far from dominating.

But if Fed is indeed the perfect matchup for Nadal, then that shows how incredibly good Fed is, that he's still managed to win 7/20 matches against the most unfavorable matchup possible.

Panatta was a much more accomplished clay court player than Soderling. It was his best surface. Soderling is not a really good clay court player. All the stars aligned for him to beat Nadal last year. Anyway, as you can see, Panatta won quite a bit on clay, including one FO title in 1976 among 8 total clay titles. See here:

Yes. He is a clay prodigy. A Phenom.
It takes away from just how gr8 Nadal is when "Nadal is a bad matchup 4 Federer". He is not that horrible of Match-up. Lot of it is Mental. It also takes away from federers Wins and tight battles he has had with Nadal.

Come on, what about Orantes, Vilas, Lendl just to name a few. The fact that he owned these guys on clay doens't mean they're no strong competition! Pannatta was just a bad matchup for him, like Simon is for Federer e.g.

Just to throw some numbers out there, Borg was 245-39 on clay, which is about 86%, and he won 30 titles on clay, including 6 FO titles during his career. Meanwhile, Nadal is now 181-16 on clay so far, which is about 91% , and he has won 25 titles on clay, including 4 FO titles. Federer is 141-42 on clay, at 77%, with 9 clay titles and 1 FO title.

Click to expand...

Sick numbers. It is not easy picking Nadal over Borg. Its a dead lock even tho I favor nadal slightly.

Losing to someone 7 times out of 20 matches is not what I would call a "perfect matchup." Plus, Federer has a winning record over Nadal on non-clay surfaces.

Sure, Nadal matches up well against Fed. Still though, the way some people talk about about Fed vs Nadal, you'd think that Fed has never beaten Nadal. Whereas in reality, a 13-7 record in favor of Nadal, while lopsided, is far from dominating.

But if Fed is indeed the perfect matchup for Nadal, then that shows how incredibly good Fed is, that he's still managed to win 7/20 matches against the most unfavorable matchup possible.

Click to expand...

No no, I'm aware it's not completely lopsided. It's just I don't think having to go through Fed gives Nadal an advantage over Borg, since there are players that Nadal would fear more than Fed.

Borg lost only twice at the French to the same guy...and had he not retired so young he would have like 10 FO or more.
Nadal on the other hand even if win more than 6 French opens...I don't think in terms of pure ability on clay would he be better than borg. Nadal with a donnay borg pro strung at 80lb of tension...I don't think he can handle that....the fact that he plays a topspin game is with that racquet and strings. If he used a wooden racquet and played agianst borg...he would lose big time. Borg is the best that has ever played on Clay...and should be the greatest simply because he the most fit and tactile complete player on clay. Ken Rosewall won like 10 FO...he is great too.. Nadal even at the end of his career would be dawned as one of the greatest clay courters but he holds no cake to Borg. Even If nadal achieves more than borg...Borg is the better clay courter in pure ownage on clay!

Come on, what about Orantes, Vilas, Lendl just to name a few. The fact that he owned these guys on clay doens't mean they're no strong competition! Pannatta was just a bad matchup for him, like Simon is for Federer e.g.

Click to expand...

All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

All of them teamed up couldn't beat Federer much less take a set off him.

Click to expand...

Both Lendl and Vilas were better clay court players than Federer, given Federer's results so far. Also, why compare Borg's opponents to Federer? It's safe to say that Borg was quite a bit better than Federer on clay. Meanwhile, Nadal is among the all time greats on clay. Borg, Lendl, and Rosewall are others near the top of the list.

So, in your opinion, Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever, with Federer about #2 all time? So, Borg couldn't get a set off Federer or Nadal, and the two of them are by far the greatest clay courters of all time, is that your opinion? What about Lendl, Wilander, or Vilas versus Federer?

I disagree, Nadal-Borg would be close, but Federer is more like top 10-20 all time on clay. To say that Borg couldn't take a set off him really defies logic and would imply that Federer could win in straight sets against anyone in history on clay, besides Nadal and today's other "great clay courters" like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro.

Hip crippled Kuerten took prime Federer to school on clay. I guess in his prime he would triple bagel Borg on clay then considering how easy it was for him to beat up on poor little Rodgie even in a warped state, LOL!

So, in your opinion, Nadal is the greatest clay courter ever, with Federer about #2 all time? So, Borg couldn't get a set off Federer or Nadal, and the two of them are by far the greatest clay courters of all time, is that your opinion? What about Lendl, Wilander, or Vilas versus Federer?

I disagree, Nadal-Borg would be close, but Federer is more like top 10-20 all time on clay. To say that Borg couldn't take a set off him really defies logic and would imply that Federer could win in straight sets against anyone in history on clay, besides Nadal and today's other "great clay courters" like Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro.

Click to expand...

Borg played with a tiny wood racquet and gut strings . When he tried to male a comeback against the power tennis graphite racquets with his same set up he was destroyed.

Even on the old timers tour he does not fair very well. Johnny Mac routinely beats him even on clay.

Yes I do think Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time.

Wilander....just a Borg clone

Vilas.....another Borg clone but not as good.

Lendl lost to Borg and Borg only used a wood racquet while Lendl had a graphite. Lendl also lost to chang who played on ome leg amd served underhanded .